MRF LIMITED Vs. SANDIPAN KISHANRAO DESHMUKH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 11.4.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.8.1999 of a District Forum whereby petitioner along with respondent No. 2 was directed to jointly and severally replace one new 900-16 TTR tyre or pay cost thereof with interest to respondent No. 1.

(2.) In nutshell, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Respondent No. 1/complainant purchased two tyres manufactured by the petitioner/O.P. No. 2 company from respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1 for Rs. 11,000 on 29.11.1997. Respondent No. 1 alleged that one of the tyres bearing No. L-15417 was found defective within 18 days of purchase and was given to respondent No. 2 for replacement on 17.10.1997. On tyre not being replaced the respondent No. 1 after serving legal notice filed complaint against respondent No. 2 wherein petitioner was impleaded as a party later on, claiming replacement of the defective tyre and damages on account of business loss. Since respondent No. 2 has not challenged the order passed by Fora below only the plea taken by the petitioner in the written version need be referred to. It was stated that the tyre in question was received for inspection by the petitioner from M/s. Jaju Tyres and it was thoroughly examined by Amar Dev Banerjee, Sales Executive. On examination, Mr. Banerjee found that the tyre had burst due to concussion i.e., on coming in contact with a sharp object as a result of excess air pressure in tyre. Since there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre, the petitioner was not liable to replace it. In support of this plea inspection report of said Amar Dev Banerjee was filed.

(3.) Submisison advanced by Ms. Surekha Raman for the petitioner is that the tyre in question did not have manufacturing defect nor was that proved by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 also did not produce the tyre before the District Forum. In support of further submission that damage to the tyre was due to concussion she has invited our attention to the reort of Amar Dev Banerjee at page 28. In our view, non-production of tyre before the District Forum by respondent No. 1 was not fatal as the report at page 28 was given by Mr. Banerjee on inspection thereof. Tyre in question was within warranty period at the time the damage was caused. We are of the opinion that having raised the plea in written version that damage to the tyre was due to concussion it was for the petitioner to have proved this plea. It is not in dispute that affidavit of Amar Dev Banerjee, Sales Executive of the petitioner company who examined the tyre was not filed by way of evidence to prove the report at page 28. In this backdrop, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. R.P. dismissed.